linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86/mm: allow to have userspace mappings above 47-bits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <87a88jg571.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:23:54 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/26] x86/mm: allow to have userspace mappings above 47-bits

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> writes:

> On x86, 5-level paging enables 56-bit userspace virtual address space.
> Not all user space is ready to handle wide addresses. It's known that
> at least some JIT compilers use higher bits in pointers to encode their
> information. It collides with valid pointers with 5-level paging and
> leads to crashes.
>
> To mitigate this, we are not going to allocate virtual address space
> above 47-bit by default.
>
> But userspace can ask for allocation from full address space by
> specifying hint address (with or without MAP_FIXED) above 47-bits.
>
> If hint address set above 47-bit, but MAP_FIXED is not specified, we try
> to look for unmapped area by specified address. If it's already
> occupied, we look for unmapped area in *full* address space, rather than
> from 47-bit window.
>
> This approach helps to easily make application's memory allocator aware
> about large address space without manually tracking allocated virtual
> address space.
>

So if I have done a successful mmap which returned > 128TB what should a
following mmap(0,...) return ? Should that now search the *full* address
space or below 128TB ?

-aneesh